From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
To: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: improving GROUP BY estimation
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 02:12:33 +0100
Message-ID: <56CD0381.5060502@2ndquadrant.com> (raw)
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
Hi,
while working of using correlation statistics when estimating GROUP BY
(or generally whatever uses estimate_num_groups), I've noticed that we
apply the selectivity in a rather naive way.
After estimating number of groups in the whole table - either by reading
pg_stats.n_distinct for a single column, or multiplying (and doing some
additional magic) for a group of columns, we do this:
reldistinct *= rel->rows / rel->tuples;
which essentially applies the selectivity to the ndistinct estimate.
So when you have a table with 1000 distinct values in a column, and we
read 10% of the table, we expect to get 100 distinct values.
But consider for example the table has 100M rows, that the column has
n_distinct=10000 and we're reading 1% of the table (i.e. 1M rows). The
current code will estimate the GROUP BY cardinality to be 100 (as 1% of
the n_distinct), but in reality we're more likely to see all 10000
distinct values.
Example:
CREATE TABLE t (a INT, b FLOAT);
INSERT INTO t SELECT (100000 * random())::int, random()
FROM generate_series(1,10000000) s(i);
ANALYZE t;
SELECT n_distinct FROM pg_stats WHERE attname = 'a';
n_distinct
------------
98882
-- 1% of the table
EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT a FROM t WHERE b < 0.01 GROUP BY a;
QUERY PLAN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
HashAggregate (cost=179514.33..179523.45 rows=912 width=4)
(actual time=916.224..955.136 rows=63492 loops=1)
Group Key: a
-> Seq Scan on t (cost=0.00..179053.25 rows=92216 width=4)
(actual time=0.103..830.104 rows=100268 loops=1)
Filter: (b < '0.01'::double precision)
Rows Removed by Filter: 9899732
Planning time: 1.237 ms
Execution time: 982.600 ms
(7 rows)
-- 5% of the table
EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT a FROM t WHERE b < 0.05 GROUP BY a;
QUERY PLAN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
HashAggregate (cost=180296.06..180345.22 rows=4916 width=4)
(actual time=1379.519..1440.005 rows=99348 loops=1)
Group Key: a
-> Seq Scan on t (cost=0.00..179053.25 rows=497123 width=4)
(actual time=0.096..1000.494 rows=500320 loops=1)
Filter: (b < '0.05'::double precision)
Rows Removed by Filter: 9499680
Planning time: 0.129 ms
Execution time: 1480.986 ms
(7 rows)
This is getting especially bad when reading only a small fraction of a
huge table - it's easy to construct cases with arbitrarily large error.
And it's worth noting that the error is almost exclusively massive
under-estimate, so the "wrong" direction as HashAggregate is still
vulnerable to OOM (again, the larger the table the worse).
So I think a more appropriate way to estimate this would be to find the
expected number of distinct values when sampling with replacements, as
explained for example in [1].
Applied to the code, it means changing the line from
reldistinct *= rel->rows / rel->tuples;
to
reldistinct *= (1 - powl((reldistinct - 1) / reldistinct, rel->rows));
With this change, the estimates for the examples look like this:
QUERY PLAN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
HashAggregate (cost=179283.79..179883.48 rows=59969 width=4)
(actual time=897.071..934.764 rows=63492 loops=1)
Group Key: a
-> Seq Scan on t (cost=0.00..179053.25 rows=92216 width=4)
(actual time=0.104..820.276 rows=100268 loops=1)
Filter: (b < '0.01'::double precision)
Rows Removed by Filter: 9899732
Planning time: 1.261 ms
Execution time: 962.812 ms
(7 rows)
and
QUERY PLAN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group (cost=232886.15..235371.76 rows=98234 width=4)
(actual time=1519.545..2104.447 rows=99348 loops=1)
Group Key: a
-> Sort (cost=232886.15..234128.95 rows=497123 width=4)
(actual time=1519.540..1838.575 rows=500320 loops=1)
Sort Key: a
Sort Method: external merge Disk: 6824kB
-> Seq Scan on t (cost=0.00..179053.25 rows=497123 width=4)
(actual time=0.090..1044.099 rows=500320 loops=1)
Filter: (b < '0.05'::double precision)
Rows Removed by Filter: 9499680
Planning time: 0.133 ms
Execution time: 2147.340 ms
(10 rows)
So much better. Clearly, there are cases where this will over-estimate
the cardinality - for example when the values are somehow correlated.
But I'd argue over-estimating is better because of the OOM issues in
Hash Aggregate.
regards
[1]
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/72223/finding-expected-number-of-distinct-values-selected-fr...
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackersAttachments:estimate-num-groups-v1.patch (binary/octet-stream, 626B) downloaddiff --git a/src/backend/utils/adt/selfuncs.c b/src/backend/utils/adt/selfuncs.cindex 46c95b0..82a7f7f 100644--- a/src/backend/utils/adt/selfuncs.c+++ b/src/backend/utils/adt/selfuncs.c@@ -3438,9 +3438,9 @@ estimate_num_groups(PlannerInfo *root, List *groupExprs, double input_rows,
reldistinct = clamp;
/*
- * Multiply by restriction selectivity.+ * Estimate number of distinct values expected in given number of rows.
*/
- reldistinct *= rel->rows / rel->tuples;+ reldistinct *= (1 - powl((reldistinct - 1) / reldistinct, rel->rows));
/*
* Update estimate of total distinct groups.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: improving GROUP BY estimation
In-Reply-To: <56CD0381.5060502@2ndquadrant.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox